Khrushchev and Socialist Realism: a Study Op the Political Control Op Soviet Literature, 1960-1963
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
KHRUSHCHEV AND SOCIALIST REALISM: A STUDY OP THE POLITICAL CONTROL OP SOVIET LITERATURE, 1960-1963 APPROVED: Major Professor linor Professo '\ OLSMI DirectoJMr of the Department of Government ,!»».!ui * Deait of the Graduate School KHRUSHCHEV AND SOCIALIST REALISM: A STUDY OP THE POLITICAL CONTROL OP SOVIET LITERATURE, 1960-1963 THESIS Presented to the Graduate Council of the North Texas State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OP ARTS BY Harold R. Sanders, B. A, Denton, Texas August, 1969 TABLE OP CONTENTS Page LIST OP ILLUSTRATIONS Iv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. METHODS OP POLITICAL CONTROL OP LITERATURE. 11 III. SOCIALIST REALISM: AN APPRAISAL 28 IV. KHRUSHCHEV AND SOCIALIST REALISM, 1960-1963: A CASE STUDY 38 V. A SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OP THE KHRUSHCHEV PERIOD . 57 VI. CONCLUSION 71 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 81 iii LIST OP ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Pag® 1. The Political System 7 2. Representative Model of a Political System 58 3. Political Socialization as a Viable Function of the Whole Political System 64 4. The System in Perspective 66 5. Khrushchev's Response to the Writers' Demands ... 69 iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this thesis is to examine the topic of political control of literature within the Soviet Union. The specific scope of this examination includes an investi- gation of Nikita S. Khrushchev and his utilization of socialist realism as one of the primary methods of literary control during the period, I96O-I963. A study of literature and its political control will demonstrate the important and dynamic roles which the political control of literature fulfills in the political system. Since literature is controlled by the political authority of- the state, an examination of the scheme of control falls within the purview of the political scientist. Because many aspects of Soviet society are controlled or manipulated by the state, one may conceptualize the Soviet system as a politically closed society. A closed society may take one of two forms: these systems are usually semantically identified as authoritarian or totalitarian. The goal of an authoritarian system is the domination of the political man. In other words, the authoritarian system seeks to control primarily the political behavior of its citizens. Total- itarianism, as its name would indicate, is the complete control of man by the state, and there is no phase of human behavior which the state does not seek to dominate. Rather than stumble into a semantical pitfall, the Soviet system will merely be semantically identified as a politically closed society. By using that concept, it can be readily seen that literature can be a dynamic force in shaping and directing public opinion within the system."'' Literature also plays an important role in the process of political socialization. Public opinion and political socialization are closely akin to one another, but there are some differences. Public opinion is most simply described as the view of the general populace, especially as a force in the determination of social conduct and political action. Political socialization is defined basically as the process by which the individual Is adapted or inducted or made to conform to the political standards of a given society. Public opinion can be directed by political socialization. That is, public opinion is generally exercised only after the general populace has been properly socialized by the system; political socialization sets the standards of acceptable social and political behavior. ^Almond and Powell's concepts of interest articulation aggregation would easily fit here. That is, literature Is a means by which the interests of society may be articulated and aggregated; however, the actual articulation and aggregation functions are performed by the government officials. See Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston7 19b6), p. 11 ff. By regulating the content and flow of literature, the political leadership both directly and indirectly controls the communication process. Here it is important to note that the communication process is inverted by the state. The com- munication aspect or function of literature becomes a political tool of the state, and literature, therefore, becomes 2 a means of "reverse communication." Literature is often a method of communication from the dissatisfied section of society to the establishment, or it is a means of communicating public opinion to the political decision makers. In the Soviet Union that process is reversed; public opinion is formed and established by the political leadership. There are many significant aspects of literary control which need to be perused. The mere fact that the political leadership of the state deems it necessary to control and regulate the dissemination of literature implies a state of conflict within the system. By directing the flow and content of literature, the state is attempting to still the voices of p Generally when one speaks of communication, the usual directional flow is upward, i.e. from the citizens to the political leadership of the state. A good example would be the "muckraker" type of literature which exposes faults within the system and suggests new authoritative allocations. The "reverse communication" function of Soviet literature does not fit this conceptual mold. On the contrary, "reverse ' communication" becomes thinly veiled ideological directives and commands from the state to the citizen. Thus "reverse communication" is a means by which the political leadership influences public opinion and the communication processes of the citizen. possible dissent. Artistic quality is important only if the views are directives of the state are represented.^ It may be readily seen why the intelligentsia would become disillusioned over the cultural policies of the govern- ment since it is the intelligentsia who are generally critical of the state. The words intelligentsia and intellec- tual usually imply a person of education and learning. The intelligentsia is usually more aware of political and social problems than the general public; they are likewise usually more critical. Since the Soviet state owns and controls the means of communication and mass media, the only real avenues of communication open to dissident Soviet intellectuals are the creative arts; or they may choose to remain silent. •^The first duty of literature then is to represent the beauty of the socialist state; artistic responsibility must follow the commands of the government. That is to say that if a work follows the ideological directives of the regime, i.e. the tenets of socialist realism, the artistic quality of that work is correspondingly high and vice versa. ^Por the purposes of this thesis, the arts as a whole will be treated only tangentially. The major emphases herein will be directed toward literature; however, whenever there have been restrictions in one of the arts, similar restrictions have also appeared in the sister arts. Thus when the leader- ship of the state make objections about abstract and avant garde art, there is an implicit objection made about abstraction and the nouveau in all art forrfts in general. For research purposes, statements made about literature in particular will be emphasized; however reports of other art forms, because of their direct bearing on literature, will also be utilized. The state in recognition of this factor accordingly puts clamps on the arts as a means of expression. For if the function of a political system, as Beer and Ulam suggest, is to make legitimate policy decisions, the protests of Soviet writers challenge the very legitimacy of that system. On the other hand, Communist Party and Soviet governmental officials, by utilizing the flexible concept of socialist realism, are seemingly trying to reestablish the legitimacy of an intensely tightened policy of political control over literature. In the Soviet Union, as in any closed society, political control of literature is neither primarily moral nor paternal in nature; on the contrary, it is a potent political and ideological weapon in the system's political armament magazine. Literature can articulate the interests of society as seen by the authoritative allocators and directly present these Interests to the citizens. The political leadership is in essence articulating and aggregating interests for the citizen. By forcing the intelligentsia to bend to its will, the government Is attempting to disguise its policy decisions in the form of prosaic or poetic work. "Literature, broadly speaking, still remains the hand maiden of propaganda in the U.S.S.R. ."6 cz Cf. Samuel H. Beer and Adam B. Ulam, editors, Patterns of Government (New York, 1967), p. 21. ^Frederick C. Barghoorn, Politics in the U.S.S.R. (Boston, 1966), p. 55. " — Literature in the open society can very easily be the gadfly that constantly goads society to take a closer look at its structure and institutions; it can be the veritable alter-ego that society might need.^ Literature definitively, stylistically, and historically represents and depicts the political culture of a given society, and it is also a means of politically socializing an individual into the system. The environmental and structural features of the political culture may not always be explicitly represented in literature, but there is a definite implication always present pointing to their existence. Literature, as a means of political socialization, can for the purpose of examination be placed into